What are “1099 Employees”?

chupacabra news independent contractor 1099 employee

The chupacabra is a heavy creature, reportedly the size of a small bear, with a row of spines reaching from the neck to the base of the tail. Its name means “goat-sucker,” which comes from its habit of attacking livestock, especially goats, and sucking their blood. [Editor’s note: Please, folks, protect your goats.]

Why am I leading this post with information about the chupacabra?

[SPOILER ALERT:] Because it’s not real. Not a thing. Doesn’t exist.

Same with “1099 employees.” Businesses using this term almost certainly are trying to classify these individuals as independent contractors. As we know, independent contractors (if properly classified) are not employees at all. Business must report the compensation of employees on a Form W-2, not Form 1099.

When businesses describe independent contractors using terms like “1099 employee,” they are raising red flags, suggesting possible independent contractor misclassification — almost begging for an audit!

As we discussed here, what you call your contractors can make a big difference in determining whether they are truly independent contractors or should instead be classified as employees under the law.

Remember, the determination of Who Is My Employee? — that is, employee vs. independent contractor — is made based on legal standards, not how the parties decide to classify their relationship. You can call your pet three-toed sloth “Usain Bolt,” but that doesn’t mean he’s fast. (I’m sure he’s cute, but he’s not fast.)

So please don’t call your independent contractors “1099 employees.” Or we’ll send the chupacabras after you and your goats.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

NYC Freelancer Law & New Rules Now In Effect, But New Rules Could Violate Federal Law

new york city freelancer law new rulesIf you retain freelancers in New York City, pay attention.

As we wrote here, NYC’s Freelance Isn’t Free Act requires a written agreement when retaining an individual independent contractor, if the value of services is $800 or more. The law covers any individual non-employee, including nannies and babysitters. (Loyal readers, please read this earlier post for details.)

The law took effect May 15, 2017, but new rules — effective July 24, 2017 — create additional burdens.

The NYC Department of Consumer Affairs has published final rules implementing the Act. While the purpose of the rules is (supposedly) to clarify the Act, the Rules go much further and create new requirements — some of which may be contrary to federal law.

For example, the Rules prohibit class action waivers and prohibit arbitration agreements. That’s not in the original law. It also may be against federal law. As the Supreme Court recently ruled, state laws that prohibit arbitration of certain types of claims are in violation of the Federal Arbitration Act. (The Supreme Court will soon decide whether class action waivers in employee arbitration agreements are impermissible under the National Labor Relations Act, but that’s an entirely different issue, which requires the court to reconcile two federal laws — as opposed to conflicting federal and state/local laws. Read more here.)

The Rules also provide an absurdly expansive definition of retaliation, including creating an automatic violation for “any person who denies a work opportunity to a freelance worker who exercises or attempts to exercise any right guaranteed under the Freelance Isn’t Free Act ….” Note what’s missing here:  the word “because.”

Unless this is a drafting error (which is very possible), the Rules say it’s retaliation if you stop working with a freelancer after the freelancer complains or exercises certain rights — even if the decision to stop using the freelancer had nothing to do with the protected activity. I suspect the Rule will be interpreted as if there is a causation requirement, but Rules really should be drafted more carefully. The whole point of writing Rules that interpret laws is to add clarity, not add confusion!

The Rules also say:

  • The Act applies regardless of the worker’s immigration status;
  • Retaliation, which is prohibited, can include perceived threats to the worker’s immigration status or work authorization;
  • Anyone who retains a nanny or babysitter for at least three years must provide the freelancer with free tickets to Hamilton.

Ok, I made up that last bullet point.

The rest of this is true, though; so if you are using individual freelancers in New York City, pay attention. These requirements apply to businesses retaining freelancers and to individuals retaining freelancers.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Map Shows Joint Employment Tests Are a Mess!

IMG_8284The tests for determining whether a business is a joint employer vary, depending on which law applies. That means there are different tests under federal labor law, wage and hour law, and employee benefits law, to name a few. There are also different tests under different states’ laws.

Further complicating the analysis, there are even different tests when applying the same law — depending on where you live.

Yes, you read that right. Even though the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a federal wage and hour law that applies across the country, federal courts in different states use different methods for determining whether a business is a joint employer under that single law.

Same for Title VII. Although this federal anti-discrimination law applies to businesses coast-to-coast, a business can be deemed a joint employer under Title VII on the West Coast and not on the East Coast. Or vice versa. Or yes in Virginia, but no in Pennsylvania. Huh?

We’ve discussed this complication in other posts — such as here and here — but not in graphic form.  Thanks to Richard Heiser, who is in the Legal Department at FedEx Ground, we now have this beauty!

(Heiser testified recently before a Congressional committee on the need for legislation to clear up the confusion.)

The map shows that, depending on where in the U.S. you live, the test for determining whether you are a joint employer varies under the FLSA (color) and under Title VII (pattern).

The map illustrates quite nicely how difficult it is for multi-state employers to determine whether they have responsibilities as a joint employer or not. Editor’s Note: Alaska and Hawaii are not to scale. All U.S. maps are required to say that under federal law. Or not, depending on where you live.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

NLRB Nominees Hate Puppies & Rainbows, Dems Claim

dog nlrb independent contractor -1674115_1920

Ok, not really, but it seemed that way.

Last week, NLRB nominees William Emanuel and Marvin Kaplan were alternatively tossed softballs and stink bombs in “questions” from Senators on the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee (known in Congressional circles as the HELP Me Rhonda, HELP HELP Me Rhonda Committee).

I use the word “questions” in quotes because, as both Americans who have ever watched C-SPAN would know, these events are typically staged to allow Senators who have already made up their minds to hear themselves talk, rather than ask questions. Here’s an example:

Question by Sen. Elizabeth Warren:  “Your entire career has been to discourage union membership and I just don’t understand how we can rely on you to defend workers after a long career of making it harder for them to join unions.  But let me push to another point… [changing the topic].”

Or this:

Question by Sen. Warren: “You have made it clear that you have pre-judged. … I think the American people deserve better.”

I don’t think she has pre-judged the nominees though. Just sayin’.

Or this:

Question by Sen. Al Franken (whose recent book I liked, by the way): “It seems likely that big business will probably push you to change the NLRB’s modernized election rule. If you’re concerned, I just wanted to point that out. … What I’m saying is that the unions should be able to vote sooner than 35 days. [then on to another subject]”

Sen. Patty Murray accused the nominees of “anti-worker, anti-union, even anti-NLRB measures” and characterized them as having “careers of fighting against workers’ rights.”  At least she did not dress up her remarks as a question, though. These were in a pre-published statement.

Sen. Maggie Hassan, a former corporate lawyer, was one of the few Senators to ask questions relating to independent contractor misclassification and joint employment. I should note too that her questions were legitimate questions, both topically and in the sense that they included actual question marks at the end.

Sen. Hassan asked Mr. Emanuel, “If you are confirmed, what steps will you take as a Board member to curb this epidemic of misclassification?”

Ok, “epidemic” is a bit loaded, but the bar is low here. Think pre-school obstacle course low.

Anyway, Mr. Emanuel did not take the bait. He responded, “I’m not sure I would agree with the characterization that it’s an epidemic. It does occur. … It’s like any other issue that comes before the NLRB. I would consider the facts of the case.” Jab, uppercut, duck, jab.

She then asked Mr. Kaplan if he thought the recent Browning-Ferris joint employment case was wrongly decided.  In keeping with the great tradition of non-answer answers (the perfect counterpart to non-question questions!), he declined to answer, instead acknowledging that it is up to the Board to determine the proper standard for joint employment under the NLRA.

And that’s about as exciting as it got, folks!

For those without C-SPAN access, StubHub may still have seats available to future hearings.  The secondary market for labor committee hearing tickets is white hot this time of year, especially with all the tourists in D.C.  The committees overcharge for popcorn, though.  Or so I’m told.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Misclassification settlement strips $6 million from Club Assets

IMG_1090When I was an undergrad at Michigan, any time I would drive to the airport or to Tiger Stadium, I’d see billboards for Deja Vu, a strip club with (apparently) lots of locations. I never visited (not into that sort of thing, thanks for asking), and I never thought much of it. I certainly did not expect to be writing about Deja Vu and independent contractor misclassification 25 years later. But here goes.

When patrons of these fine establishments partake in the traditional lap dance, it’s doubtful they’re thinking about whether these often-single-mom “entertainers” who are just trying to make a living have been properly classified under wage and hour law. More likely, they’re thinking about — never mind.

But that’s an important issue, as Deja Vu recently learned, when it was sued by a class of 28,177 dancers alleging they were misclassified as independent contractors, rather than paid as employees. The class alleged that the clubs intentionally misclassified them as contractors, failed to pay them minimum wage, unlawfully required them to split gratuities, and unlawfully deducted wages through rents, fines, and penalties.

After a fairness hearing in federal court in Detroit, the parties finalized a $6.55 million dollar settlement. In addition to cash compensation, the settlement includes an unusual provision allowing dancers to choose whether to be contractors or employees.

Dancers will receive between $443 and $6,007 each. Their lawyers will enjoy a payout of $1.2 million in fees, which could buy them a lot of — never mind.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Two Key Developments in Joint Employment are Expected This Week

IMG_1091.JPG

This could be a busy week for developments in the joint employment area.

1) Congressional Republicans have begun drafting legislation that could change the definition of joint employment, Bloomberg BNA reports. Presumably the goals of a new bill would be (a) to add clarity to the standards for deciding who is a joint employer, and (b) to make it more difficult for workers or unions to claim they are jointly employed.

The scope of the proposed legislation is yet to be determined. It would most likely roll back the NLRB’s Browning-Ferris decision and restore the prior test for joint employment, requiring more substantial evidence of control. House Republicans have also hinted that they may broaden the scope of the proposed bill and address the standard for joint employment under federal wage and hour law (FLSA) and health and safety (OSHA) as well.

Key supporters of the proposed legislation include Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), House Education and the Workforce Committee member, and Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), chairman of the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is involved in this effort as well.

A committee hearing entitled, Redefining Joint Employer Standards: Barriers to Job Creation and Entrepreneurship, has been scheduled for July 12, at 10:15 am.  It can be live-streamed on the web. Click here for more information.

2) On the following day, July 13, hearings are scheduled on the nominations of William Emanuel and Marvin Kaplan to join the NLRB. The hearings will take place before the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. If recommended by the committee, the full Senate would then vote on the appointments.

If confirmed, these two new members would return the Board to a 3-2 Republican majority for the first time since the beginning of the first Obama administration.

The newly configured Board is likely to roll back the expansive Browning-Ferris decision, which made it substantially easier for workers to claim they are joint employees under federal labor law. Last week’s post about these nomination contains more detail.

I’ll provide further updates as new developments take place.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

New NLRB Nominations May Lead to New Joint Employment Test (or to my misuse of Lynyrd Skynyrd song lyrics)

IMG_1088In the Lynyrd Skynyrd song, “Gimme Three Steps,” we find our hero cutting a rug down at a place called The Jug with a girl named Linda Lou. This catchy song has nothing to do with labor law but does deal with someone who finds himself in a bad situation (shakin’ like a leaf on a tree!) and needs three steps to get out the back door.

Same thing here (in a sense). [C’mon, work with me here, I’m trying to make NLRB appointments interesting!]. When not posting tweets of himself pummeling a photoshopped CNN logo outside a WWE ring, President Trump found the time to make two important nominations to fill vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), giving companies two of the three steps needed to undo a long list of anti-business decisions from the past eight years.

The two new appointmnents, once confirmed, will shift the Board back to a 3-2 Republican majority, which should spell relief for businesses in several areas — including joint employment. (Two appointments = two steps. There’s a third step coming.  Wait for it….)

Nominee William Emanuel is a long-time employment defense lawyer who has made a career out of representing companies in labor disputes.

Nominee Marvin Kaplan is currently counsel to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, an independent federal agency that rules on disputes over OSHA citations. He has served nearly a decade in various federal roles, including as Bush 43’s assistant secretary of labor for administration and management at the DOL.

Once confirmed, Emanuel and Kaplan will join current members Philip Miscimarra (R), Mark Gaston Pierce (D), and Lauren McFerran (D).

The rightward shift in the Board will likely bring relief to employers on a number of important labor issues, including the test for joint employment under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

The Board’s landmark 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris (currently under appeal) redefined the test for joint employment, deeming workers to be joint employees under federal labor law even when a company exercises only minimal and indirect control over their working conditions. The reconstituted Board is likely to revert back to the prior joint employment standard, which required more direct control over how, when, and where work was performed before a company could be deemed a joint employer. (Of course, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals may take care of that itself by reversing the Browning-Ferris decision on appeal. A decision is expected before the end of the year.)

Meanwhile, one significant hurdle remains.  (As promised, loyal reader, here’s the third step.) The term of the NLRB’s General Counsel, Richard Griffin, does not expire until November 2017. As General Counsel, Griffin acts as the NLRB’s Chief Prosecutor. When his term expires, the appointment of a new General Counsel with a more pro-business outlook is expected.

The combination of two appointments to make a more pro-business Board, plus a more pro-business General Counsel, should finally bring relief to employers who have been battered by eight years of anti-business interpretations on issues like union elections, handbook policies, and social media. These rulings have been applied to union and non-union businesses, and so a more pro-business Board will be a welcome change to the business community.

Of course, it will take time for businesses to see the effects of a new Board and, later, a new General Counsel. The right cases and circumstances will need to arise, and then more pro-business interpretations can be issued. I blogged about this topic here a few few months ago, before we knew who the two new NLRB nominees would be. With the President’s two June 2017 nominations, we are two steps closer to these changes taking full effect.  (“That’s the break I was looking for.”)

Thank you, Ronnie Van Zant and Allen Collins, for helping me to try to make this blog post interesting and, most of all, for naming your band after a gym teacher.

© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.